Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:08:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why Clang Message-ID: <1340050088483-5719484.post@n5.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182129440.45874@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206161815550.41364@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf0i64pg34t2sn@me-pc> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206172212440.2506@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3upvdc34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181749160.78762@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <op.wf3wd8vf34t2sn@tech304> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206181829210.99007@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAHhngE0eLR9PEoyn2TLuV7%2Bz7NtsHMgdsj6YbSm3ZQijDxTNjw@mail.gmail.com> <4FDF8054.9030906@fisglobal.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206182129440.45874@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That's interesting discussion. I hit some cases where clang produced binaries were clearly faster than those made with latest gcc. But it's far from rule. Where you have found statements that clang is always faster than gcc? >From my perspective, it's almost as good OR better than gcc, with potential for further improvement and nice license, errors etc. Fair enough. -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-Clang-tp5715861p5719484.html Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340050088483-5719484.post>